Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 2018

Local Authority Housing Waiting Lists: Discussion

Members and those in the Visitors Gallery are asked to ensure their mobile phones are turned off completely or switched to airplane, safe or flight mode, depending on the device used, for the duration of the meeting. It is not sufficient to leave them in silent mode as it will maintain a level of interference with the broadcasting and recording system.

An examination of local authority housing lists is the item on the agenda. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Mary Hurley, Ms Marguerite Ryan and Mr. Derek Rafferty from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government; Ms Kathleen Holohan, Ms Catherine Keenan and Ms Mary Mulholland from the County and City Management Association, CCMA; and Mr. John-Mark McCafferty and Mr. Andrew Guy from Threshold.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Hurley to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Hurley

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to attend the meeting to discuss social housing waiting lists. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. Derek Rafferty, principal officer with responsibility for social housing reform, and Ms Marguerite Ryan, principal officer with responsibility for the housing assistance payment scheme and social housing co-ordination in the Department.

The supply of social housing is a critical success factor in the management of local authority waiting lists. Accelerating supply is something on which the Department and all stakeholders have been earnestly and intensively engaged in the past few years. In 2016 a special Oireachtas committee recommended that 50,000 additional homes be added to the public housing stock. Rebuilding Ireland will achieve that figure by 2021 through a range of build, acquisition and leasing schemes. In addition, it will deliver a further 87,500 housing solutions under the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, with the aim of meeting the housing needs of over 137,000 households over the lifetime of the action plan. Over the first two years of the plan almost 45,000 families and individuals have had their housing needs met.

A key priority under Rebuilding Ireland is to increase the level of newly built social housing year by year. In 2016 and 2017 delivery programmes focused on harnessing the best options available to secure early and increased delivery. It included acquisitions of vacant stock nationally, completions of unfinished estates, advancing straightforward build projects that could proceed quickly and ensuring maximum use was secured from existing local authority housing. In parallel, the new build pipeline was expanded significantly to underpin the much increased delivery projected for the years 2018 to 2021, inclusive. In 2018 we will see the results of enhanced building capacity across local authorities and approved housing bodies which will further enhance our capacity to meet individuals’ and families’ needs across the country through the provision of additional stock. The total target for all building programmes in 2018 is 4,969 units, which is more than 50% higher than the corresponding target in 2017. Overall, it is expected that more than 25,000 additional households will have their housing needs met in 2018.

Seeing ambition translate into activity is critical. One of the key outcomes of the second housing summit with local authority chief executives in January was a commitment to drive greater transparency and accountability at individual local authority level in the delivery of the targets under Rebuilding Ireland. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has advised all local authorities of their social housing targets for 2018 and also the multi-annual period to 2021.

In setting these targets, the Minister was explicitly clear that they are minimum targets, and that where additional capacity to deliver arises, we will work in partnership with local authorities to accelerate delivery. He was also adamant that local authorities should be guided by the make-up of their waiting list, as set out in the detailed Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2017 report, as they plan and deliver these increased supports over the coming years.

Regarding the social housing assessment process, the new approach to social housing assessments came into operation in April 2011, under the social housing assessment regulations, as amended, which set out, in great detail, the process that must be followed by all housing authorities when making a determination on applications for support. This new process followed a two-pronged approach that required applicants to be both eligible for and in need of social housing support, but also restricted households by ensuring only one local authority could be applied to for support.

Eligibility for social housing support rests on the following four criteria: income, residency status, previous rent arrears and the availability of alternative accommodation. Once the household meets those criteria, the local authority progresses its application to the second phase, which involves making a determination of their housing need and this is done by considering the household's current accommodation against criteria set out in regulation 23 of the assessment regulations. A household will only be placed on the housing waiting list once the relevant local authority is satisfied it meets all of the eligibility criteria and has a housing need.

The summary of social housing assessments, SSHA, is now an annual assessment compiled and published by the Department with the assistance of the Housing Agency and the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA. The latest SSHA is in respect of 2017 and provides the most up-to-date, accurate and reliable record of the number of households which qualified for social housing support under the social housing assessment regulations and whose housing need is not being met. The data were compiled following a common methodology across the 31 local authorities and a subsequent rigorous analysis of the data collected.

The 2017 figure of 85,799 represents the "net need" position and was calculated, having excluded duplicate applications, households appearing on multiple lists in different authorities, for example, households legitimately on more than one Dublin-Cork-Galway list, households already in receipt of a form of social housing support such as the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, or the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, and households which have applied for transfers.

The 2017 assessment was encouraging as it indicated a drop of more than 6% in the numbers on local authority waiting lists across the country from just nine months previously. This is a very early indication of the positive impact of the various delivery measures under Rebuilding Ireland but also signals clearly that there remain many qualifying households whose needs are still to be met.

The ongoing multi-annual funding resources provided through Rebuilding Ireland are allowing us to continue to respond in a significant manner. More than €1.4 billion was provided for investment in housing in 2017 and this is being increased significantly to €1.9 billion this year. This investment will fund substantial delivery activity and ensure that we make further significant progress towards meeting the overall target of delivering 137,000 social housing solutions in the period to 2021, supported, as I said, by an overall Exchequer commitment of more than €6 billion over the six years to 2021. We believe this will effectively meet the needs of the vast majority of those currently on the lists.

Although the specific topic for this session is local authority housing waiting lists, many of the answers provided to the questions outlined in the invitation are likely to be more closely associated with allocation policy, as this is what provides the mechanisms for moving households from the waiting list into social housing supports. The two topics are closely related. Allocation is a key part of the social housing process and, under housing legislation, local authorities are required to produce an allocation scheme that will set out the manner by which dwellings will be allocated and the order of priority to be accorded in the allocation. It is important to note that producing an allocation scheme is a reserved function of the elected members.

While slightly different operational approaches may be followed across the country, all local authorities have one common policy goal, namely, to ensure that social housing goes to those households in Irish society who need it the most. That is also the goal of my own Department.

I thank the committee again for its invitation here today. Mr. Derek Rafferty, Ms Marguerite Ryan and I are more than happy to answer any questions or queries the members may have.

I thank Ms Hurley for her presentation. I call Ms Holohan to make her opening statement.

Ms Kathleen Holohan

I am pleased to be here to assist the committee in its examining of the housing waiting lists. I am here in the context of my role as member of the housing and building sub-committee of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, along with my colleagues, Ms Catherine Keenan and Ms Mary Mulholland.

This submission has been compiled having regard to the specific questions the joint committee requested be considered when making it. I will go through those specific questions. The first is, what are the exact structures and processes in place currently with regard to local authority housing waiting lists? The legislative provisions regarding the assessment of applications for social housing support, the adoption as a reserved function of an allocation scheme and the compilation of local authority housing waiting lists is set out in Part 3 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, as amended. That Part of the Act provides for the provision of social housing support, social housing assessment, summary of social housing assessments and allocation of dwellings.

In addition to the Act, there are regulations which are relevant to the compilation of a local authority’s housing waiting lists. The regulations clearly set out the procedure for housing applicants to be assessed and if successful they become approved housing applicants on the waiting lists. Local authorities assess all applications for social housing support in accordance with the foregoing Act and regulations. All local authorities have adopted, as a reserved function, an allocation scheme which is used for determining the priority accorded to approved applicants for social housing support. If applicants for social housing support have housing assistant payment, HAP, tenancies, they are deemed to have their housing need met and they are then removed from the housing needs assessment and placed on a transfer list should they wish.

The second question was whether the structures currently in place are sufficient and are operating as effectively and efficiently as possible. Yes, in the event there are any issues with the allocation scheme, it is open to a local authority to review and amend it, provided any proposed amended scheme is in accordance with the Act and regulations and is submitted to the Minister for consideration and possible direction prior to adoption.

The third question was whether there are any problems, bottlenecks or areas in need of improvement. In respect of the housing list applications process, the problems identified include that there is a standardised process that is unable to react to exceptional circumstances. Also, political representations and the role of advocates must be clarified and transparently managed. In respect of bottlenecks, improved inter-agency communications would be of benefit. There is ongoing work in this area such as the web API, applications programming interface, for HAP, which involves data sharing with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. Regarding areas for improvement, home visits could greatly inform the process and improve the customer experience but it is very resource intensive. Area-based clinics are a possible alternative. Some counties do home visits. There are further examples in our briefing document.

As for what, if any, improvements can be made, the definition of "homelessness" needs to be clarified or reviewed. Those availing of emergency accommodation should be visited regularly and receive active supports to source alternative accommodation, including rental accommodation. A place finder resource is to be rolled out nationally as soon as possible. All development proposals relating to the provision of social housing by private developers via turnkey projects or approved housing bodies via leasing or a turnkey project should be made eligible for consideration by county councils through the Part 8 planning process to speed delivery in supply. There are other examples in our briefing document.

As to whether there are any examples of best practice in the area, there are examples of best practice in the use of information technology. An initiative has been undertaken in Monaghan that has seen a reduction in the turnaround time for the reletting of houses. Since 2014 the average relet has reduced from 19.5 weeks to 8.03 weeks. The reasons for this include the abolition of town councils, which has led to a single housing authority operating in Monaghan, housing becoming a centralised function, a subsequent standardisation in processes, an increased use of the housing information and communications technology, ICT, system rather than many ad hoc solutions, and the introduction of a paperless housing department.

As to whether there are local authorities with innovative practices, choice-based letting is currently being rolled out in many local authorities. In November 2015, Cork City Council introduced a choice-based letting scheme, which advertises most properties online in order that applicants on the social housing waiting list can express interest in a property.

Properties are then allocated in accordance with the allocation scheme. A profile page on the website shows the applicant his or her household composition, his or her time on the list, and his or her application address on file. Originally, Cork City Council considered the introduction of choice-based lettings due to a high refusal rate. In practice, it has proved an informative and transparent way to allocate social housing and it has reduced letting times. The refusal rate lowered from between 25% to 60% to between 5% to 20%. Further details are in the briefing document.

As to how Ireland compares with other countries in regard to the average time spent on waiting lists, we have not been able to identify a readily available source to give a comparison.

Question No. 8 seeks the average waiting time when placed on a housing waiting list. The waiting time varies from local authority to local authority. Figures from the Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2017 indicate that the highest percentage on the waiting list is seven years or more, and the next highest is five to seven years, then three to four years.

Question No. 9 concerns whether the operation of the housing waiting lists is transparent. At present, the prevalence of customers presenting as homeless results in a lack of transparency in the operation of the waiting lists. Those in rental accommodation will face longer waiting times for housing allocations than those presenting for emergency services or those with specific needs, such as a disability. The large number of people currently within the HAP system means the transparency of the waiting list is distorted as these candidates are deemed to be housed but remain on the transfer list. Transparency cannot be provided until length of time on the waiting list has a real influence on the allocation scheme again.

I thank the committee for inviting us today. Ms Mulholland, Ms Keenan and I will answer any questions.

I call Mr. Andrew Guy to make his opening statement.

Mr. Andrew Guy

With regard to our briefing document and the questions outlined, question No. 3 was on whether there are any problems, bottlenecks or areas in need of improvement with the structures and processes currently in place. The housing needs assessment form needs to be processed more quickly. On average, it can take six weeks in certain local authority areas. Where we have a contact in a local authority, we have seen the form dealt with in as little as 24 hours, but this is the case only if there is a contact. We would like to see the form being assessed more quickly.

There is a direct knock-on in regard to people accessing the HAP. If someone is looking for a property in the private rental sector, it is imperative that he or she be able to move quickly and have access to HAP as soon as possible. Accessing the list is difficult in itself. There is an onerous paper-based application. From the perspective of a housing adviser who helps vulnerable people, I believe it can be quite a challenge for someone who does so on a daily basis, especially if each local authority operates a different scheme of letting. Therefore, it is imperative that access to the list be streamlined and made more accessible for everyone.

Income thresholds need to be reviewed. They are too low at present. Many clients coming to us are excluded from social housing altogether because their income threshold is too high. They are unable to afford current market rents. We see a general lack of transparency in how houses are allocated. There was a perception that people who may be on a list for a certain time see others getting a house ahead of them. They feel there is a who-you-know approach to allocation. We feel more transparency in the whole process would benefit everyone.

The choice-based lettings system is very welcome and positive. It does, however, create a change in the dynamic of how houses are allocated. The applicant must take the initiative in expressing interest. An obvious benefit is choice and control for the applicant. It is a change affecting many who might have been on the list for a long period. If this is implemented, housing supports and advice will be necessary to complement it. In addition, it is IT-based. Many of our clients whom we see daily may not be proficient in IT or may not have any access to IT systems.

On question No. 4, on what improvements, if any, can be made, a national policy on housing allocation should be implemented. It would offer better transparency and consistency between the approaches of each local authority. Ultimately, it would be of benefit to the service user. For instance, a score sheet based on a points system concerning the time one has been on the list would give one a better understanding as to where one stands and how long it may take to be offered a property.

Choice-based letting should be introduced across the board through all local authorities. However, housing supports and advice should be given alongside this to ensure those who may not have access to the appropriate systems or who may not have an understanding of how the system actually works will not be put at a disadvantage.

Question No. 5 seeks examples of best practice in the area. The choice-based letting system offers best practice in the Irish context. We feel it could be a fair system. Any housing options a local authority is developing should be offered with housing advice and support services in a wider context as part of homelessness prevention work and wider housing services.

Question No. 6 concerns whether there are any local authorities with any innovative practices. While not a local authority, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive uses the ETHOS typology of housing assessment. ETHOS is a broad definition of homelessness and housing exclusion and includes households that are roofless, in insecure housing or sofa-surfing. This approach should be used by all local authorities and should certainly be adopted in changing the definition of homelessness. Each local authority, particularly front-line staff, should be given training in using this typology and assessment method.

On how Ireland compares with other countries in regard to the average time spent on waiting lists, we feel the social housing system in each country is unique, which makes it extremely difficult, and potentially misleading, to make comparisons between countries.

With regard to the average waiting time when placed on a housing waiting list, our clients regularly report very long waiting times. We have seen people on the list for over ten years. In Galway, for example, most people have been on the list for over ten years. Some people we encounter have been on the list for up to 14 years. It is difficult to say but the majority of clients are definitely on the list for more than five years, and sometimes more than ten.

I thank Mr. Guy. Does Mr. McCafferty wish to contribute?

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

Yes. I thank the Chairman. I will briefly give some context and then I might answer questions Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Guy has answered Nos. 3 to 7.

In broad terms, there is a fundamental lack of supply coupled with insecurities within the private rental sector. The housing waiting list system is couched in a system whereby, from the point of view of the local authorities, construction, vacancies and acquisition are predominantly of three and four-bedroom houses, yet we have an ageing population and an increasing number of households in smaller housing units. There are many single-adult households. What is required on the macro scale is a greater balance in construction and acquisition to reflect the nature of the list itself.

Of particular interest to Threshold, as the national housing charity working with renters, is the level of priority given to the transfer list which impacts on HAP, and the issue of responding to hidden homelessness. Mr. Guy mentioned the ETHOS definitions and the broader typology of what homelessness is and how it presents. Regarding the new scheme of lettings that Dublin City Council has been debating, many of our clients are arguably in very challenging and worse positions than certain households in emergency accommodation settings and are, in effect, homeless. They are sofa-surfing and sleeping on people's floors. That has to be reflected in allocations.

On HAP, there is clearly a lack of security of tenure. While we welcome many things the HAP system brings, the differential rent scheme and recent legislative improvements in security of tenure, clearly there is much stronger security of tenure when based in a local authority house or an approved body housing unit.

I will respond briefly to question No. 1. When filling in the housing needs assessment form, our advisers, such as Mr. Guy, have an extensive sense of the process. Once households get approved for a housing list, however, the advice is usually to find a house using HAP. Beyond that, we have limited knowledge of the system.

The waiting list system does not work as effectively as it could. There is no unified electronic system across all local authorities and no national standard in the methodology of assessing housing needs and the scheme of letting priorities.

A lot of these issues are debated and decided at local level. We welcome Dublin City Council's attempts to try to have a conversation about rebalancing that transfer list to make more allocations from that list.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have a number of comments and questions. I am a huge fan of choice-based letting, having been on South Dublin County Council for a number of years. Not only is it a much more efficient system in terms of turnaround properties but it also gives the applicant some control over the properties they express an interest in. We should not discount that. There are a number of issues, however. Threshold raised the issue of people who do not have access to computers or who are not computer literate. It is important that local authorities that offer choice-based letting provide a walk-in service for people who, on the days when choice-based letting is open, can go into the local authority and have their expressions of interest done by a staff member.

In large urban areas where there might be a housing estate that for whatever reason has a particular reputation, tenants who are in more secure rental accommodation will not express an interest in that area. Tenants who are in more insecure accommodation and have more complex needs will express an interest and, by accident or default, there might end up being an over-concentration of families with specific sets of needs in certain geographical areas. There is a need for that to be acknowledged and for flexibility in the allocation scheme to prevent that concentration. Some local authorities do that but others do not.

Rebuilding Ireland contained a commitment to a roll-out of choice-based letting across all local authorities. I would like an update from the Department and the CCMA on where that is at. As long as those caveats are dealt with, choice-based letting should be the primary mechanism for allocating 70% or more of properties that are not on the priority lists.

There is an urgent need to review the income thresholds. The economy is picking up and people are getting back into work but we have two other difficulties. As a result of the housing crisis, multiple generations of the one family, through no fault or desire of their own, are being forced to live together in private rental accommodation. People are being removed from the housing waiting list because they have their adult children living with them, even though their adult children do not want to live with them but they cannot secure rental accommodation elsewhere. Their income is pushing them over the threshold and, because the review is annual, more of them are being excluded. Where people are involuntarily sharing, there should be a different way of calculating the portion of the adult children's income that is taken into account, for example, a disregard of 50%. I have said before in the Dáil that family income supplement, FIS, should not be included in the calculations of the income thresholds for eligibility. The fact that a family is on FIS is the State saying its income is not adequate. I had two cases in the past 12 months of families being less than €1,000 over the threshold on an annual basis because of FIS and they were removed from the list. They then had this terrible Hobson's choice between not applying for FIS the following year, thus reducing the family's income and losing their position on a local authority waiting list. In both cases, they were nine or ten years on the list. In addition, an increasing number of local authorities are refusing the inclusion of adult children on the list. An example is a woman who lost her job, went back to education, could not afford her private rental accommodation and, therefore, decided to move in with her parents. She is in her mid-30s and when she applied to go on the housing waiting list she was told she did not have a housing need because she was able to live with her mam and dad. It is bizarre stuff that makes no sense whatsoever and it needs to be looked at.

With regard to lettings, residency needs to be reconsidered particularly in respect of women fleeing domestic violence. Greater flexibility is needed in order that, for example, somebody is able to move from the local authority in which they have habitual residency to a neighbouring local authority to access accommodation, particularly in smaller local authority areas where there are very real safety issues. Some local authorities apply that flexibly and others do not. It needs to be standardised. A similar point could be made regarding Travellers.

I will not get into an argument about how good or bad the HAP and RAS schemes are but the simplest way to deal with the HAP transfer list is to give those on it access to choice-based letting. That tackles the transparency argument because they now know the issue is length of time on list through choice-based letting. Some local authorities have started to do that and, therefore, they are not counted in the global housing list figures. They are on a HAP transfer list but they have access to choice-based letting on exactly the same terms as they had previously. I keep saying this and Ms Hurley is blue in the face listening to me say it but the Department should just decide that is the way it should be done and issue the circular.

I have a big concern about the annual reviews. The idea is good in principle but it is a significant administrative burden on local authorities. The way the triennial reviews used to be conduct in the large local authorities was complex. People would be written to, sometimes on multiple occasions. Some local authorities would follow that up with a text message, particularly to try to access vulnerable, hard-to-reach households. Additional effort would be made to try to reach people with literacy issues. When we move to the annual review, local authorities will not have the capacity to conduct that big exercise through no fault of their own. I am worried we could end up losing some of our most vulnerable housing applicants because the local authority does not have the capacity to conduct the same extensive review it would have done previously.

I refer to home repossessions. The difficulty for families that are having their homes repossessed is they know there will be a date when they lose the property. In some cases, the local authority does not know what the income the family member will be left with after the house sale if it is in positive equity. There is a bizarre scenario where they cannot apply to go on the social housing waiting list until the repossession is complete even though that process takes approximately year. As Threshold said, they then have to wait six or eight weeks before it is processed. Only then can they start applying for HAP. There has to be a way of saying there can be an in-principle processing in advance of the repossession date. That can then be finalised once the income benefit to the family is known. The family can, therefore, get onto the list immediately for the purpose of securing HAP accommodation. It is a simple measure the Department could implement.

The figures the CCMA has given are interesting. I would have loved to see them go beyond the seven years. I have the figures from my own local authority. Perhaps the CCMA could provide figures at a later stage from across the State for the years 2007 to 2009, 2009 to 2011, 2011 to 2013 and 2014 onwards. If the CCMA follows the scheme it has up to 2014 onwards, it would be good.

I know Ms Hurley's job is to present these figures as positively as possible and she is exceptionally good at it. There are 85,799 households on the waiting list but there are also 36,444 active HAP tenancies. The vast majority of those people who want council housing are in short-term insecure tenancies. There are still approximately 20,000 households in the rental accommodation scheme, RAS. As Ms Marguerite Ryan will be aware, because I have been pestering her about it recently, RAS is under pressure. There is a gross housing need of 142,244 on the basis of the figures. I do not mind separating them out because that is valuable but we need to understand if the 36,000 HAP tenancies were all put on choice-based letting, they would bid for properties. Large numbers of them would not be willing to forgo the possibility of a long-term secure tenancy for a perpetual cycle of two years. I understand why the Department presents the figures this way but, in total, 142,000 households need long-term secure social housing.

Ms Mary Hurley

I will come in on some of the issues and I will ask Mr. Rafferty and Ms Ryan to come in as well. Regarding the presentation of the numbers, and the needs of 37,000 households being met by HAP, 350 tenancies per week are being added under the scheme. We are seeing it work well for people and we are seeing people in secure tenancies that are lasting. Some do not and where that happens, we try to work through the place finder to find them other accommodation. However, people are having their housing need met by HAP and they are comfortable within that group. There are 86,000 households on the waiting list and we are targeting those most in need. They are the priority people. For us, the 86,000 are the people on waiting lists. People on HAP are in houses and homes that are secure. That is where I am seeing it from.

I will work through some of the issues the Deputy raised. On the choice-based letting, we are all in agreement it is a great scheme and it works well. While it has been rolled out in all areas, it is operational and fully working in only 16 of them. We are working with the other local authorities to make sure it is fully rolled out. Cork and south Dublin are great examples of how it works. It is agreed that choice-based letting is a good scheme and it is something we are trying to encourage local authorities, in which it is not fully operational, to operate.

When does Ms Hurley hope to have all local authorities operational?

Ms Mary Hurley

We did work on it late last year when it was operational in fewer than 16 local authorities.

I hope this will be rolled out more extensively by the end of the year. We may not have all local authorities operating it because some are saying it might not work for them. There is work to be done in this regard. It is operating well in 16 local authorities.

The Deputy asked about the walk-in service. That is in place in Cork and it works well. It is something which we will work on with our colleagues in the CCMA and LGMA with a view to rolling it out in other areas. It is important for people who do not have access to the online service. Choice-based lettings is a priority for us and we will work with the other local authorities in which it is not fully operational over the coming months.

We are examining the FIS issue at the moment. I understand where the Deputy is coming from. We are looking at the suite of eligibility criteria. Members will be aware that a review of income eligibility for social housing is under way. The Housing Agency is doing some modelling in that regard. Our colleagues in Threshold referred to that. Work is being done on the composition of the lists, eligibility and which people need to go on the list and we expect the results of that towards the end of the summer.

With regard to the movement of households, I was asked about domestic violence. Other situations may arise whereby households need to move from one local authority area to another. We have been working with local authorities on greater flexibility, in particular around homelessness. At the first housing summit, the Minister focused on cases in which people were willing and wanted to relocate from pressure areas to rural areas and indicated that we could facilitate that through local authorities. We have been working with local authorities on greater flexibility in specific cases, including cases of this sort. My colleagues in the CCMA can speak to this also but my understanding is that where these special situations arise, people are facilitated with the agreement of the local authorities. We encourage local authorities to work together on a range of issues to facilitate households that need, and want, to move. My colleagues can probably discuss that in greater detail.

I was asked about annual reviews. One of the reasons we were carrying out annual reviews was to get an accurate picture. The process has been under way for a number of years and it is getting sharper. Concern was expressed about people who did not respond and might fall off the list. In that regard, the first time the review was carried out, there was a large and detailed exercise as to where the list was at. Mr. Rafferty has been providing training sessions to local authority staff and working with them to ensure we capture everyone in need and we have the most accurate list.

I was asked about home repossessions. We are trying to focus on prevention where people present at local authorities and it is better if they never enter emergency accommodation in the first place. Ms Ryan is working with local authorities on the place finder service. If we know that someone will lose his or her home in six weeks, it makes sense to commence working with him or her immediately. That is something we will follow up on.

That relates to notices to quit in the private rental sector whereas the issue I am raising relates more to home repossessions.

Ms Mary Hurley

If those people make themselves known to their local authorities, we will work with those authorities to facilitate early engagement. It is difficult when the local authority does not know about a person. Certainly, we can engage in a campaign around prevention. We encourage local authorities to facilitate people they know are going to lose homes, whether through a notice to quit in a private rented dwelling or through the repossession of a home. We are also working mortgage-to-rent scheme. There are 671 mortgage-to-rent cases in the system now. Where people lose homes and are eligible for social housing, the best solution for us is to keep them in those homes. We can work on that under the scheme. Ms Ryan will respond to the Deputy's queries on HAP.

Ms Marguerite Ryan

With regard to the need for flexibility for people to move between local authority areas, we issued a direction under circular last year to formalise what was previously an informal procedure on inter-authority movement for HAP tenancies. That is working quite well and it gives people the option to retain places on the existing transfer list while seeking accommodation in neighbouring or different local authority areas. We have been engaging directly on HAP and RAS with local authorities and a couple of different strands are coming together to enable and support local authorities to negotiate to retain existing RAS tenancies using enforcement opportunities under the Residential Tenancies Acts and to facilitate what we can by looking at HAP as an opportunity for RAS tenants. That would have to be on the basis that the RAS tenant was interested in, and accepting of, the move to HAP. Our focus at the moment is on trying to work through all the opportunities in that area.

Ms Kathleen Holohan

As Ms Hurley said, 16 local authorities are working on choice-based letting. Some of the smaller local authorities are of the opinion that it might not suit their circumstances. The IT system has been shown in Cork to work well. A manual system is seemingly resource-intensive. I take the Deputy's point that people need support. In addition to the concept of a walk-in clinic, the potential exists for people to use libraries where staff would be in a position to help people with the online system. The income issue is being examined. It causes issues, in particular when people in bordering counties may be in different bands. That is particularly frustrating for everyone involved. People can find themselves just over the limit because they are a few miles down the road from the area they see as their natural home.

Different local authorities approach the issue of single people who live at home in different ways. People's circumstances are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Traditionally, they would never even have been considered, but that has changed. It is provided for in the regulations that a local authority should take into account the accommodation the person is in but the schemes are flexible enough to allow local authorities to have regard to individual circumstances. Equally, the case of a person from one county who is in a domestic violence situation is dealt with on a case-by-case basis and between adjoining local authorities. There is no blanket rule to say that a person from Carlow, for example, who experiences domestic violence must be dealt with by Carlow County Council and not by another local authority.

The HAP transfer list could be examined in respect of choice-based letting. I do not know off the top of my head whether that is used in any local authority area.

Dublin does it effectively.

Ms Kathleen Holohan

If it was rolled out, it would make sense. Transparency is part of the issue and that has come up a few times in the questions. When dealing with competing balances and people with difficult circumstances, including medical conditions, homelessness and domestic violence, it is difficult to keep everything entirely transparent. As such, a person who thinks he or she is in the top ten and sees that 20 houses are coming on stream might be under the impression that he or she will definitely get one and that creates a challenge.

In respect of the annual review, local authorities would make contact on a number of occasions. A number of local authorities would use social media to advertise that a review is being carried out and publicise it in local newspapers. I know from my own experience that the three-year assessment used to give rise to people being taken off the list but the main criterion is there - that they come back on. The door is not closed to them if they come back on. They can be dealt with.

In our submission, we made a comment regarding the concept of home visits. If one was aware of people on the list who were vulnerable and had that resource available and they were not responding, it might be possible to follow up in that sort of scenario. Likewise, the placefinder process enables us to look at people who may not yet be evicted or have their home repossessed so both of those could be looked at.

I think the Deputy asked about further details on the breakdown of the length of time. I am sure we can look to see if we can get to that. Just because somebody is ten years on the list does not necessarily mean they did not get offers of accommodation. In some cases, people have declined many offers of accommodation.

Does Mr. McCafferty wish to come in?

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I am not sure if there is much to add. I do not think there was a specific comment from the Deputy.

It was only if Mr. McCafferty did want to add anything.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

At this stage, no.

I thank everybody for coming here this morning. I will keep my comments and questions very focused on what we are dealing with today, namely, examining local authority housing waiting lists. When I looked at this, the first thing that came to mind was transparency because a lot of people on our housing lists cannot understand the inconsistencies. I have one question for Ms Hurley. We see her all the time so I will stay fairly focused. She had it right there when she spoke about a common methodology across the 31 local authorities. My experience is that it is different all over the place. I will not cite particular councils because they are not here, that would not be fair and I do not want to misinterpret my understanding of these local authorities. Some local authorities have a numbering system.

Dún-Laoghaire-Rathdown is the one with which I would be most familiar. People can ring in and say they are "X" and are told what number they are on. I know there are always deciding factors. One can never tell anyone where one will be but one has a sense of what one is about. There are other local authorities where someone can ring up and be told something different three times in the one week. They have no number so the person has no allocation number. We have heard anecdotal evidence of political patronage and I know the CCMA and the witnesses have mentioned it. There is a perception that if one knows someone politically, it helps one. Politicians have fed into this and I will be critical of politicians when I say that. They are being entertained in pubs, clubs and various places where people have meetings or clinics and are being told: "I'll put in a word for you." That is grossly unfair but that is what people go away thinking. They decide to do the rounds so they hawk the kids around to three clinics of three different politicians on Saturday morning because they think they have nothing to lose, it might get them a way up and the politicians might show them great understanding and might have a relationship with the housing manager. I am not saying this happens because I do not believe it does happen. I think that is worth saying. I think it is all above board but people must have confidence that it is above board and it must be transparent. I am very familiar with the National Treatment Purchase Fund and how it had to tackle waiting lists because I was a director there. I consider that to be the same issue. It is about data, embracing technology and putting systems in place. Would the witnesses or the CCMA look at the possibility of adopting a standardised electronic process where once the application has been judged valid, each individual could access a central register on a IT system, key in their independent identification number and be able to see where they are? There is nothing more soul-destroying than people coming and saying they thought they were number 20 but have now discovered they are number 40. Accountability is an issue. I think it is to protect the staff and everyone against accusations or suggestions that there was something below board. Transparency must be the key message coming from our deliberations here today.

I will go into the question of data but there are all sorts of different data. I circulated some data relating to councils around the country last week. I was quite amazed by the responses I got. They are all in writing and I have them all so I can show them to anyone who wants to see them. They disputed these figures whether they related to the delivery of housing, the lists, how many people are on them and the categories they are in. That is another day's work but that feeds into all this. I think the more data we have and the more we embrace technology, the better because it is really important.

I have a few points to raise with the CCMA. The witnesses from the CCMA talk about a standardised process being unable to react to exceptional circumstances. I am advocating a standardised process but I do accept there is that variance. Ms Holohan might comment on that. I touched on political representations. She talks about political representations and how the role of advocates needs to be clarified and transparently managed and I agree with her. We need a protocol around that in terms of Oireachtas Members. Some councils will ask one to present a letter of authority because in many cases, politicians are making representations where they do not always have the authority. I agree with Ms Holohan. I think that is a really positive thing. We need a standard protocol around the entire country in respect of that.

With regard to people aged 55 and over specifically categorised for accommodation, should we look at pushing that out to 60? I think we should but, again, I acknowledge that each local authority adopts its own scheme. It is a reserved function and I am loath to interfere with reserved functions. They have very few of them and this is one of them. Perhaps the witnesses might give us some commentary on that.

Can it be confirmed that Placefinder is operating everywhere? It should be rolled to all 31 local authorities. On the one hand, there is a balance between the Department coming the heavy on councils and councils being undermined. There is an issue of balance there. When we decide on policy, and Placefinder is a good one, we need progress on that. Could we have a list of choice-based lettings, particularly in respect of Kilkenny, Dún Laoghaire and Carlow because the three individuals are here? Could the witnesses tell us their intentions regarding choice-based letting because that is really important? I have dealt with the issue of transparency.

Threshold made a really good submission. I think the witnesses spoke in great detail about single people being discriminated against. This is the case. I spoke to a man from Rathmines who has been on housing list for 17 years. He had been in Dún Laoghaire. He discovered he was on two lists, which he should not have been, so he looked at the options and found that Dublin City Council and Rathmines represented the better option for him when it came to getting accommodation so he is now solely on that list. He told me that he had been told by officials that he will have to wait another few years and that then he will get the accommodation by virtue of his age. That is a terrible thing to have to say.

I thought the point made by the witnesses from Threshold was a really good one. In Housing Law, Rights and Policy, Padraic Kenna writes that:

There is a widespread assumption (whether justified or not) that the allocation of Local Authority housing has been part of the local political patronage or clientelist network of Ireland. The absence of a national, transparent accessible and objective system of managing waiting lists and allocating homes has fuelled this view.

I will leave it at that. I think that is the challenge. We need a proper transparent process that can be independently validated and that gives people confidence in the scheme.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I thank Senator Boyhan for the feedback about the input. One of the key points he raised that we wanted to raise in the question and answer session is around single people and how, in effect, the system intentionally or unintentionally discriminates against them. One could argue that Threshold was founded partly on the basis or strongly on the basis that even when the State was providing a high quantum of social housing, many single people were left to the vagaries of the private rented sector long before it was regulated in the way it is now and that many people had to face bed-sits or other poor-quality accommodation and unregulated levels of rent. All ruling parties since the 1980s have made a very deliberate decision to divest themselves of a social housing system and to rely on the market to provide for people on middle to lower rents in the private rented sector.

We welcome the fact that we now have frameworks in place like HAP, improved security of tenure legislation although there is still a fair bit to go, and the removal of bedsits, which we warmly welcome. We have still a good way to go in terms of standards and I know that the committee will consider the matter in the future.

A key issue we want to mention is the fate of single person households. We urge the committee to be mindful that the number of single person households in the State is increasing. A family comprising two or three children and two parents is still part of society but the share of that size of family has radically shifted in terms of household composition. Neither the housing market nor developers has reflected the change when they choose to build. The planning system does not reflect the change and public policy does not adequately reflect the change. That scenario is manifest in the housing situation. We seek a shift in policy in terms of how the change manifests itself in allocations, and also in the wider construction and acquisition strategies of local authorities and approved housing bodies.

Ms Kathleen Holohan

Senator Boyhan asked about common methodology. The process has been set out in the assessment regulations. Local authorities process applications in accordance with both the regulations and the legislation.

Part of the point that we made in our submission concerned transparency and, in particular, the general data protection regulation, GDPR, in terms of the responsibilities of local authorities, the rights of housing applicants and the potential responsibilities now being placed on public representatives due to what the regulations may require them to do.

In terms of the legislation and regulations, clearly there are certain circumstances in which people must be considered in terms of an overall priority situation, perhaps somebody living in a dangerous building. There is prioritisation. Some local authorities use a numbering system. Housing officials can say to somebody, and it has been their experience, that he or she is tenth on a list but something can happen for any number of reasons where that person is displaced due to an overall priority scenario. It is not that local authorities do not want to be transparent. We want to be transparent and we want to help people, as best we can, to understand where they are on the list.

Different systems have been employed over the years. For example, with the points system people could move up or down the list. Next there was a closed list and a points system, which meant people knew their place on a list for six months or a year. However, when the list was reviewed people often were moved further down the list. The work is challenging but the sector is keen to develop a standard process for use across the system. One is never going to get a 100% transparent system due to emergency circumstances. Housing officers try to balance the competing needs of the various people on their housing lists at all times. Such work is challenging at present due to the high number of homeless cases and the increasing number of medical cases presenting in different local authorities.

In terms of providing accommodation for people who are aged 55 or 60, some of the larger local authorities have specific accommodation for the elderly and might operate same on that basis. There is potential because last year's assessment of housing need showed 45% of applications were from single-person households. We must decide whether we need to change the profile of our housing stock to meet that need. In many cases those single-person households might be due to marriage or relationship breakdown. The applicants may have their children to stay for weekends or holidays, which poses a challenge in terms of saying that the people are only entitled to a one-bed unit yet they really need a two-bed unit. There are some very good examples of developments that are specifically for the elderly, which is something that local authorities will continue to do.

The placefinder service has not been rolled out in every local authority. My local authority is operating it and we have recently been sanctioned by the Department to recruit somebody specifically to do such work as their role.

I apologise for interjecting. I have a question for the three witnesses who are here to represent local authorities. Is there funding for personnel in every local authority for a placefinder service?

Ms Kathleen Holohan

Yes. The Department recoups 90% of the cost of the post.

Is it a resource issue?

Ms Kathleen Holohan

No.

Is it a question of people committing to drive the initiative forward?

Ms Kathleen Holohan

Yes, to improve their process.

The Senator mentioned political patronage. All local authority officials work to the legislation, regulations and to the personal circumstances of housing applicants. It is a very difficult balancing exercise. Over the years there have been cases where people told public representatives information pertinent to people's housing circumstances but the people have not told the local authority. I make that point in order to be fair.

The choice-based letting system is not in operation in Carlow but we are considering the matter. I call on Ms Mulholland to reply.

Ms Mary Mulholland

It is important that the choice-based letting system is introduced with an ICT system. The technology has been piloted in the Cork and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown areas. When the system is correct and read to roll out we will implement it on a full-time basis along with an ICT system. Recently we have manually operated the system on a case-by-case basis with a small scheme allocation. We found that it takes quite a lot of work to write to everyone in the area who has expressed a preference in the area where the scheme is and ask them to express an interest. Therefore, an ICT system is necessary and we need one in place before we can fully roll out the system.

Is there a plan to make that happen?

Ms Mary Mulholland

Yes.

What is the timeframe?

Ms Mary Mulholland

I hope to have it in place by the end of the year.

Ms Catherine Keenan

In Carlow-Kilkenny.

(Interruptions).

Ms Mary Mulholland

We have tried to operate the choice-based letting system manually. We found it to be quite slow and I would say it confused customers. It is in everybody's interest that we introduce the system along with the technology.

Ms Catherine Keenan

From the perspective of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, we brought in an IT choice-based letting pilot system last year and found that it worked very well. At the beginning we piloted hard-to-let properties. The system has worked so well that the number of refusals has decreased from 35% in 2016 down to 24% in 2017 and we will roll out the system in July.

The county council is developing a new civic hub that will be staffed by 16 people who will deal with many queries, including housing queries. We will provide kiosks so that people can access the properties online. We will also provide support to people who wish to apply for housing and general housing supports. The initiative will free up staff who work in the backroom offices so that they can concentrate on allocations and other aspects of homelessness.

In terms of accommodation for elderly people, 50% of the one-bed or two-bed need can be found in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area. We have provided a number of elderly accommodation sites in Rochestown and Sallynoggin. We have embarked on a pilot scheme that provides a larger one-bedroom unit that can be divided into two to enable a carer or family member to stay overnight. In June, ten such units will be opened at a location called The Brambles in Sallynoggin. That proves we are aware of these problems and are addressing them.

I have a question for Ms Keenan about the choice-based letting pilot scheme. Again, we have heard about the pilot scheme in various guises in the 31 local authorities. I presume that the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has reviewed its pilot scheme. I suggest Ms Keenan might share the lessons learned and information with us as the other local authorities would benefit.

What have we learned from these reviews?

Ms Catherine Keenan

We did have some problems. Pilots do not come without difficulties.

That is why I am asking about the follow-on.

Ms Catherine Keenan

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin has mentioned that some people might go for a house in an area that is not so nice because they feel pressurised to do so. We found that people lower down the list were accepting them, not those high on it. When a person gets into what we call an "offer zone", we seek Garda vetting and so on. As people lower down the list would not be in that zone, it might take longer. We expect it to even out when we put everything not going on the priority list on the standard list for choice-based letting, CBL. We asked customers how they felt about it. They would like to see properties and more pictures of the inside of properties online. We can do some of this. Showing properties is difficult. It is very resource intensive. These were the things we had not foreseen.

Does the council show them? Do people have an opportunity to see houses on the list for choice-based letting?

Ms Catherine Keenan

In pictures.

They do not actually get into them.

Ms Catherine Keenan

No, not at the moment. It is something we could consider, but it would be very resource intensive. Even though people might accept a house on the list for choice-based letting, they might refuse it afterwards. We also have to deal with that aspect.

There were several questions about the housing assistance payment. Does Ms Ryan want to answer them?

Ms Marguerite Ryan

On the placefinder service, as clarified by Ms Holohan, the circular issued in January made it available in all 31 local authorities. To date, we have had confirmed expressions of interest and starts in 14 local authorities. We continue to engage with several additional local authorities. There are two elements to the place finder service and homeless HAP scheme, one of which is the resourcing of a staff member to assist in the on-the-ground place finding, while the other is access to deposits and advance rental payments to secure additional properties under the homeless HAP service. The Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, acts on behalf of the four Dublin local authorities. We have been meeting it regularly, even as recently as last week. It is a question of drilling further into the reach of the placefinder service, ensuring the local authorities, where it has a responsibility, have access and that we widen the scope and resources available to make sure a placefinder is available in each of the local authorities and that there is a contact point in each of them. There is no difficulty in resourcing or the administration of the placefinder service.

I welcome everyone, particularly Ms Mary Mulholland and Ms Kathleen Holohan from my area. I will go easy on Ms Mulholland.

The lack of housing supply is the biggest issue facing us. While I welcome the housing assistance payment, HAP, there are major problems with the scheme and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS. Last week I asked the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government about the rent pressure zones. He said he would be breaking the law if he were to include Carlow or similar areas in the scheme. Today we discussed the rent pressure zones with the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, which stated it could introduce them because the Department was considering a second phase. It is in the amendment that all county councils and local authorities be considered for inclusion in rent pressure zones. There are 21 such zones. It costs €1,000 to rent a house in Carlow. The cap for the housing list is an annual income of €27,500. The maximum payment under the HAP scheme for a couple with one child is €600 per month. A lone parent with three kids receives €700. The problem is that because rents have gone up so much there is a balance of €300 to €400 that people are not able to pay. There is an appeal mechanism and I am constantly in contact with the local HAP section, but it is not enough. Rents have risen and HAP scheme payments are not half what they should be. While the Department has created rent pressure zones to help, it has created a disaster in other areas which I see. Because of this people are only barely surviving. It is causing a lot of hassle.

A person included in the HAP scheme or the RAS receives his or her payments but someone in receipt of rent allowance does not qualify to go on the local authority housing list. The rent allowance is too small. If there is a crisis and someone is not on the housing list, we go to the Intreo centre which we would have known as the social welfare office where the person can receive rent allowance in an emergency. It is very small; a person would be lucky to receive €500, but the monthly rent is €1,000. We are creating a situation where people are starting to become homeless. In my area, because the criteria do not add up, it is causing problems. I was all in favour of the HAP scheme because I felt the rent allowance scheme was not good enough, but now the HAP scheme is causing too much trouble.

I think the RAS needs to be changed. A person can only be taken off it if he or she has been on the housing list since before 2011. Many want to come off it. I do not think they should have to have been on the housing list since before 2011. That is part of the policy and I have many issues with it.

At €27,500, the housing list cap in Carlow County Council is one of the lowest in the country. I have been bringing up this issue for months with Ms Mulholland. I know people who do not qualify to go on the local authority housing list because they are in receipt of family income supplement, which puts them in a dilemma. The Government has brought forward a new mortgage system which does not consider family income supplement payments, although they are considered in being on the housing list. No such payments are considered in the case of a mortgage. People are becoming homeless because they may be €1,000 over the limit in seeking to go on the housing list. The constituency is Carlow-Kilkenny, but in the case of Kilkenny County Council, the cap is €33,500. The difference does not add up. People are panicking and I am really concerned. Ms Mulholland has said there will be a decision on the cap by late summer. I hope that by the end of September she will be able to tell us there is a different cap for Carlow County Council.

Reviews are carried out every two or three years. Persons who have been on the housing list for eight or nine years may be taken off it because they are over the limit, but are not given a chance to appeal. I have made representations for several people in that position. The council needs to put a system in place for them because being taken off the list can have an awful effect on them. They are down in their rent allowance payments and may not qualify for a mortgage. The council needs to put a system in place to prevent that from happening. I think this is happening in all local authorities.

Owing to staff shortages, a person who applies to the local authority may have to wait up to ten weeks to be put on the housing list. I cannot blame any local authority for this, but the issue needs to be examined. I know of cases where people have been waiting ten to 12 weeks, which is unacceptable. People need to have their interview within three to four weeks because they are waiting for rent allowance payments and need to know if they qualify to be put on the housing list. There needs to be a system in place such that everybody will be given a fair hearing, but that is not happening.

The approved housing bodies, AHBs, have started to buy and build a lot of houses lately. A total of 15% of the persons who qualify for one of these houses do not have to be on the local authority housing list, but 85% of them do.

When these houses are given out, people work through the local authority and the names are given by the authority to these bodies. They will interview people and they go on need and sometimes they will not go on time spent on the list. Somebody might be only three years on a list and somebody else might be eight years on the list and not get one.

We have to welcome the fact that all these agencies are buying houses, but the problem is there is no joined-up thinking. Is there some system where the approved housing bodies can work with local authorities on this? They provide names, but perhaps a system could be put in place. I understand some people may be more in need of housing because they have children with disabilities or illnesses. I understand they need to be a priority. Carlow County Council would be accountable and at times when I go in I would think I have a good case and the council workers would have to listen to me. Working with the local authority system for 20 years, one would know most families over generations. It is what happens in our line of work. I can honestly say accountability is 100% with us. The criteria for special cases are not clear. What I class as a special case might not be classed as a special case by Carlow County Council. Guidelines must be put in place in all local authorities. We need to have a particular timescale. Focus Ireland has played its part lately by working with local authorities. Are we moving many cases from local authorities to Focus Ireland? We need a system in place in this regard and we should look at that.

I understand anti-social behaviour does not happen too often but the only reason for eviction is non-payment of rent. If somebody causes anti-social behaviour, it can be very unfair on good people. It does not happen too often but it happens. A system should be in place for the local authority to sort this out. It cannot happen in the courts - I am dealing with some matters in court currently - as a log is required of what happens every day and there must be formal complaints. It does not work as the process is too long. It is not a massive issue but it can be a concern for people living in an area.

The Senator has spoken for nine minutes.

I will be two minutes more.

There are four more people who wish to contribute.

Okay. I will ask about caravans in housing estates. Is there a policy in place in this regard? If a caravan is on a green area, for example, what is the story? Is there a policy and if there is not, could we look at getting one? I have many more questions but I will get back to them.

If there is time to answer the caravan query, that will be great. It is probably not part of this issue.

Ms Mary Hurley

Approved housing bodies, AHBs, work in partnership with local authorities. With our build delivery this year, AHBs work very closely with local authorities and they will deliver 1,500 build units this year, with local authorities delivering 2,300 new builds. It is a partnership. Local authorities always have the nomination rights so AHBs do not decide who goes into particular houses. They will get the nomination from the local authority. It is very much collaborative and the local authority retains the legal responsibility for-----

To correct the witness, sometimes if there are ten houses, 20 names could be given. Those 20 people would be interviewed and then there would be a decision. That is great and I welcome that but it can be confusing for people who are longer on a list and do not understand the process. I can see that sometimes there could be ten houses with 20 names going forward before a decision is made. They are good decisions.

Ms Mary Hurley

The reason for that is if there is a refusal so there can be a back-up arrangement in place. It is very much that the local authority, in order, would nominate the household for the house and then it would work with AHBs. If somebody refused the house, the process would move to the larger group nominated for the house.

Ms Mary Hurley

The Senator is right in that, within allocations, different local authorities would have different criteria for need and priority cases. There is a different make-up to the list. That is why there is a slight difference in everybody's allocation scheme. The schemes are run in accordance with the scheme of lettings. The needs may take in medical or homelessness priority and the schemes are operated according to the list. With AHBs we have first tried to build capacity because of the challenge ahead. They will deliver a third of our social houses to 2021. It is also about encouraging great collaboration between the local authorities and AHBs.

The Senator is very passionate about people who fall just outside of eligibility, and she raises their cases all the time. There is a review under way of income eligibility for social housing. The Housing Agency has been doing modelling in that regard and we expect to get something, as I stated, over the next few months. We will be looking at that. We are looking at the family income supplement issue raised by the Senator as part of the review of income eligibility.

There are also the housing assistance payment and rent pressure zone matters.

Ms Marguerite Ryan

For an area to be designated as a rent pressure zone, rents must be high and rising quickly. The annual rate of inflation must be at least 7%. The rents are monitored closely by the Housing Agency and, following consultation with the local authority concerned, it may propose an area to the Minister. There is a process behind that. The Senator asked about the difference between rent supplement and HAP. She knows rent supplement has been replaced in the majority of cases for new applicants by the housing assistance payment. We cannot comment on rent supplement specifically because it is a matter for the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. From our perspective, however, we see HAP as open, transparent and it is clear what a person is eligible for with respect to rent and limits for each household type. I am not sure about the Senator's comparison of the two. She mentioned rent supplement not being sufficient.

HAP is very low in Carlow. It is €600 per month for a person with two children and €700 for two adults and two children. That is low because rents have gone to €1,000 per month. People are not able to meet the €300 differential. They also pay the council €70 or €80 per week. People are falling behind so it should be examined.

Ms Marguerite Ryan

The local authorities have discretion to alter the payment by 20%.

I know but it is all they have.

Ms Marguerite Ryan

I do not have the figures for Carlow but the use of discretion has not yet peaked in the Carlow region. From a statistical perspective we are not seeing that it is hitting the maximum of 20% in the majority of cases. However, individual cases may vary. It is a matter for the authority to consider specifically. In addition we have section 43 determinations that provide a little additional scope in terms of specific household classes that fall outside normal bands.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

As the Senator notes with respect to income review, some people are removed from the list each year. It is a relatively small number that are affected but it happens. The Department's view on this, as communicated to local authorities, is that when a person is removed from the list, he or she should be given every opportunity to engage. People are typically removed because they do not engage or respond to correspondence from local authorities. They can get back in touch and there is usually a three to six-month period in which an authority would allow them back and put them on again.

In the specific case of an income review, where the applicant has been told that he or she is over the income limit, while it is more clear-cut, obviously a conservation should be had with the local authority. The CCMA can answer this more directly but those conversations take place. If there were to be a mistake or if it were to be wrong, it would certainly be corrected and they would be put back exactly where they were, with no loss of their place on the list.

They are not. That is the problem. If a person is taken off the local authority housing list and gets back on the list a few months later, he or she starts from the beginning. I have had many experiences of this. The previous record of six or seven years on the housing list is not recognised.

I will call a representative from the CCMA.

Ms Mary Mulholland

In the case of County Kilkenny, which is the review we are working through at present, we would have a 70% return from tenants and we phone people and visit them, if required, where we believe there are capacity issues to get their details in. People are given every opportunity to get the information back in. Where people are removed from the list on the grounds of income, the eligibility is clearly set out in the regulations. If there is an issue where a person is not meeting the eligibility criteria, we have to work within the regulations. Where people are in a situation where there is a capacity issue or illness and they have not returned their information in time, they are not removed from the list but are put back in with the entitlements they had.

Issues in respect of eligibility criteria are different because if they want to return to the list, their circumstances would have to change again. That would mean starting from a new position on the list.

The issue is that the income limit for eligibility in County Kilkenny is €33,500 whereas the income limit in County Carlow is €27,500. There is no comparison. There are people who are not on the list because they do not qualify on the basis of income levels but who should be on the housing list. I thank Ms Mulholland for clarifying the information but the system is just not right. The income eligibility limit is the reason so many people in County Carlow do not qualify. There are 6,000 people in County Carlow who do not qualify at present to go on the list, but many more would qualify if we changed the income eligibility cap.

Ms Mary Mulholland

The operation and management of the list has to do with eligibility first and need also. Income would be part of the eligibility criteria and we have to work within that.

The point was made that Focus Ireland provides services. The counties in the south-east have an arrangement under homeless funding, that is, section 10 funding for tenancy support and sustainability service, which is delivered by Focus Ireland in the local authorities and works very well because it raises the customer focus within the overall service and it deals with avoiding a homeless situation in the supports and advice service they give.

I invite Deputy Pat Casey.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I wish to focus on transparency and what the applicant is entitled to because I am getting different feedback from different local authorities. What level of information is the applicant entitled to?

I wish to deal with the administration and bureaucracy around the housing assessment form. Ms Mulholland mentioned the choice-based letting and the administration involved in that. We seem to be consumed by bureaucracy and paperwork which takes away a resource that could be spent better somewhere else. Is there any technology that can streamline the process and make it more beneficial to everybody involved so as to keep the key resources to be spent on more important issues?

I have not had much experience of choice-based letting because it is more the traditional way of letting in County Wicklow. Is there a comparison of how the two systems are working out? I imagine the only way we can work this out is by the refusal rates and the reasons for refusals. Have we data on refusals of choice-based lettings compared with refusals of traditional letting?

The CCMA gave us the average waiting list and the breakdown of the numbers. Threshold said that 45% of people on the waiting list are single people. Do we have a breakdown not just in years on the list but the different categories of people on the list, such as the number of single people on the list? We are saying that 24% are on the list for seven years or more. Of that 24%, would the number of single people be 75% of the total? Do we have an analysis of the data giving the different groupings and how long they are on the waiting list?

Ms Kathleen Holohan mentioned home visits and perhaps she could elaborate on those. Does she mean that when an application is made, an official goes out to ensure that the application is returned or is there something else that I am missing in respect of home visits? Ms Holohan also made the point that the definition of homelessness needs to be clarified or reviewed. Will she explain what exactly she means by that? We had a debate with the Minister last week on homelessness. Will Ms Holohan revert to us on that please?

Ms Holohan mentioned data and the transfer of data information between different bodies and different sources. How can we streamline that process because in some ways that can block up the whole system?

Would Ms Ryan like to come in before Ms Mulholland?

Ms Marguerite Ryan

I will deal with streamlining and the removal of bureaucracy. There are some very good examples and we have heard about choice-based letting. There are other examples across government, in motor tax, student support grants and most recently the Passport Office. In partnership with CCMA and the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, we are looking at the best options and it would require significant investment, but we see the value of it.

Ms Mary Mulholland

One of the items the Deputy raised was people knowing where they are on the list. The Department is very clear and is of the view that people should be able to find out where they are on the list. A number of local authorities are very clear on that also. In Dublin City Council, the applicant gets a reference number and can track it that way. In some local authority areas it is possible but in others they do not tend to give the applicant the place on the list. The reason those local authorities give for not providing the information is that they do not wish to raise expectations as people will be disappointed because something may happen. People are watching the list. The Department would be in favour of people knowing their place on the list. The operation of the list is not straightforward so it is understandable in some local authority areas that they try not to raise people's expectations. From the examination we have done during the course of the review, however, we are seeing that many local authorities give the information on where the applicant is placed on the list but some do not. Those that do not give the information will engage with the applicant and tell him or her about the waiting period and the potential timeframe.

I thank Ms Mulholland. Will Ms Holohan comment?

Ms Kathleen Holohan

Some of the comments in our submission are in the context of transparency and, as I said, we want to be as transparent as we possibly can be with people who are seeking housing from the local authorities. As Ms Mulholland has said, part of the challenge is that we have to deal with exceptional circumstances. We are dealing with homeless, medical and emergency cases, and that has become more difficult in recent times because of the increased levels of homelessness and an increase in some local authorities in medical cases as well. One may run the risk of giving an applicant the impression that he or she is likely to be housed in six months to a year, and then something happens which means that does not happen. This is particularly the case in areas of high demand or where there is a smaller amount of accommodation available. If an emergency occurs or somebody must be housed because of a compassionate situation and there is very limited stock, it causes difficulties. It would be something that we would be interested in trying to standardise as much as we could across the system.

There have been some efforts to improve the bureaucracy and paperwork in the administration of housing.

Earlier, I mentioned Monaghan County Council. It has done considerable work in its processing and its ability to process housing applications using a paperless system. In recent months, local authorities in the south eastern region met to consider how we can move that forward. Data sharing is another area being examined. Under an ongoing project between the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Cork City Council, the candidate local authority under a national programme board, the Department and local authority share data. The system allows for the extraction of information required about a person. Not only can this be used for the housing application but also for the assessment or a rent review, for instance. We hope that type of exercise can be expanded with other State agencies but that will require work to the information technology systems on both sides. Someone applying for social housing, for instance, will need a form stamped by the Revenue Commissioners declaring whether the applicant is in receipt of tax relief on a mortgage. Most local authorities do not have a Revenue Commissioners office in the county. In some cases, such as Kilkenny, the Revenue Commissioners office is not open to the public. That is a challenge in itself for housing applicants.

At a general level, the County and City Management Association, CCMA, is looking at the current housing IT system. Most local authorities use a system called iHouse, although the Dublin local authorities use a different system. A project board is in place to upgrade the system to achieve a much better, more user-friendly system with greater functionality across the sector.

On the housing needs assessment, it is possible to do an analysis to show the length of time on the list and the age profile.

On home visits, traditionally some of the bigger local authorities inspected accommodation at the time of the application. Inspections were not always done and they have been somewhat reduced in number. They were used in the past, particularly when there was a points systems and it was necessary to calculate whether accommodation was overcrowded under legislation. Our view is that home visits would bring about a better understanding of the circumstances in which people are living and would be a form of outreach to the housing applicant, especially those who might have challenges in terms of their ability to communicate with local authorities or understand the system. However, as we noted in our submission, this approach would be resource-intensive.

Similarly, the comment on the definition of homelessness relates to transparency. Currently, local authorities are trying to provide solutions for people who are at risk of homelessness. A definition is not provided for in the legislation. We raise this issue in the context of providing clarity for everyone involved.

The project I outlined in Cork is an example of the transfer of data, an issue raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

I will reiterate Ms Ryan's earlier remarks about the better use of technology. The Deputy's point was well made. Ideally, we would like the application for social housing support to go online. That would be a progressive step. We are looking at it as part of the broader social reform agenda. Similarly, as part of the broader reform agenda, there is a case for having the application for social housing support, which is virtually the same in every local authority, dealt with by one authority rather than 31 different local authorities, as is currently the case. These are broader reform issues, and there are many other things below that to be implemented, but they are on our radar.

On the issue of using data to give us a better idea of the people who have been on the housing waiting lists for seven years or more, it is possible to do so. The process which we go through with the CCMA and local authorities to get the summary of social housing assessments, SSHA, each year is exhaustive but once the data have been cleaned up, they give us an incredibly detailed dataset that we can mine. We are planning to create sub-reports of the summary of social housing assessments that would look at specific issues. That will probably be done this year. Waiting lists would be one sub-report, while the situation of older people would be another. We would certainly be able to get the data to which the Deputy referred. We can probably interrogate and investigate the data to the nth degree. We will examine this issue in the context of the 2018 SSHA, which should be published by the third or fourth quarter of this year.

I also referred to choice-based letting, CBL, rather than the traditional format that we have used in Wicklow, and the refusal reasons. Is research being done or are data being collected on choice-based letting? Is the number of refusals declining? What reasons are being given for refusal compared with the traditional form?

Ms Kathleen Holohan

I apologise, I cannot read my own writing. It is a little early to do comparisons. Reducing the refusal rate was one of the motivations in Cork city, but the council has seen greater benefits than that. It had refusal rates of between 35% and 60% and these rates have fallen to between 5% and 20% which is very significant. Ms Keenan will have seen similar changes.

Ms Catherine Keenan

In 2016, we had a refusal rate of 35% which fell to 24% in 2017 with the CBL pilot. I urge caution, however, as there is a correlation between the fall in refusal rate and the type of accommodation we are providing. We are building again and building high quality homes that people would have no reason to refuse. Some research might also need to be done on that aspect.

The main thing is we are doing the work and getting the data.

I do not want to leave out Mr. McCafferty. If he does not wish to comment, I will call on Deputy Danny Healy-Rae.

I welcome the witnesses. I must concur with Senator Murnane-O'Connor who raised the HAP cap. The cap has been set at €575 in County Kerry. People can appeal and, if lucky, the threshold will be raised by 20%. However, rents around Killarney have increased to €1,000, €1,200 or €1,500 and €2,000 and the HAP payment in no way meets the needs of many people who are homeless, living with parents or friends or in other scenarios. Can the limit be increased in Kerry? We have a great housing section in Kerry County Council and it does great work. I appeal for an increase to the HAP limit in Kerry.

There is also an issue with applicants being removed from the list because they do not reply to the assessment when they get it.

People move around and it is difficult to stay in the same place because landlords only allow people to remain for a certain length of time. The next thing they are gone, so when a letter comes from a local authority, it is not answered. In one case I dealt with, there was a family dispute and the poor girl moved from one parent to the other. She never got the notice. After she received a phone call, she rang the general number for the county buildings. Since no one on the switch could tell her who had rung, she could not get through to anyone. She is off the list and must now reapply. It will be a battle to have her years restored. That is wrong. In another instance, a man was also thrown off the list after he had moved. I have several cases like this. These people are being asked to fill out the application forms again. Once they do, their previous years on the list should be restored automatically.

It has been suggested that public representatives were making representations on behalf of applicants without being requested to do so, but that is not my experience. I have enough to do making representations for those who are asking it of me. I do not know how a representative could find out that someone was looking for a house. Elected members do not get the housing list like we used to years ago. The only way I know of to find out whether someone has made an application is if he or she contacts us. There is no other way. As such, I reject the assertion that people have been making representations without being asked. It is not happening.

I am dealing with people who have been on the list for 14 years and are in private rented accommodation. When I ask why they have not been granted local authority housing, the answer I receive is that they are too young. They are 33 or 35 years of age. It is unfair. Fourteen years is a long time to be on the list. The assertion that they have been left behind because they are too young needs to be examined.

I have always said that there should be no such thing as one-bedroom houses. We should be building two-bedroom houses instead. Invariably, people will need someone to stay with them if they are sick at night. Friends and relatives visiting is the one thing that might brighten up their lives for a small while. The spare room need only be a small one. This would not cost much extra. It would be just as cheap to build a two-bedroom house as a one-bedroom house.

From my knowledge of Kerry, there is no rent allowance. If a current tenancy expires, there is no rent allowance or RAS option. The only show in town is HAP or long-term leasing. The latter is a serious option for some people because they are taken off the listing as a result. This is a Government-led idea to show that it is doing something about reducing the list by taking people off it. Even though people enter into long-term leasing, if the landlord is not happy, he or she will invariably say that he or she will be selling the house or putting a relative into it. The tenant then goes to the bottom of the pile and must start all over again. These are the types of battle we are fighting in Kerry. It is wrong. There is a claim that people are being housed and have security of tenure through this long-term option, but they do not.

For a long time, we have been asking for the return of the tenant purchase scheme. It was abandoned for four or five years. Now it is back, but in a changed format. Pensioners who have saved enough are not allowed to buy out-----

The Deputy has had his eight minutes and I still need to allow Deputy Boyd Barrett to contribute. The tenant purchase scheme does not form part of examining the waiting list. I must allow Deputy Boyd Barrett in, or else we will run out of time.

Give me just a minute and I will finish, as it has-----

The Deputy has 20 seconds because I will no longer have time to ask a question even though I am a member of the committee.

The scheme has a bearing on this issue. Funding from purchases accrued to the local authority, which allowed the authority to do up vacant houses, or voids as they are called. However, that is not happening now as it used to previously, which is having an adverse effect on the housing list. I thank the Chairman.

Before I go to Deputy Boyd Barrett, a number of Deputy Healy-Rae's questions have already been answered three times. If the witnesses do not have time to answer again, the Deputy might have the opportunity to play the meeting back. It is the fourth time the witnesses have been asked the same questions.

I thank our contributors from the local authorities and the Department. I thank Ms Mary Hurley for helping with a couple of emergency cases during the week that I raised at this committee last week. It was appreciated. I also thank Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, which is at its wits' end, the same as most public representatives, with the housing emergency. The council must deal with the difficulty of the lack of local authority housing and the impossibility of trying in many cases to source HAP accommodation, which is the only housing being offered because rents have gone through the roof.

I would like an answer from someone, although I know that this is a political matter and my question is really to the Government. HAP cannot deliver the quantity of social housing that has been set as its target under Rebuilding Ireland. It is a fantasy that is exploding in our faces and will explode in an even bigger way in the coming years as it becomes more apparent that HAP is not social housing in any meaningful sense. It is not secure in the way a local authority tenancy is. I do not count long-term leasing as social housing, but even if one accepts the figure of 50,000 that includes long-term leasing, the rest of the 133,000 units targeted under Rebuilding Ireland are HAP, RAS or various forms of outsourced private rented accommodation. That cannot happen.

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has always been ahead of the game. Even when rents decreased in the rest of the country, they never really decreased in Dún Laoghaire. In 2011, we were able to flag that the move away from direct council housing construction was going to cause a housing crisis because it was obvious in Dún Laoghaire that one could not deliver through outsourcing. The rest of the country discovered that in 2013 and 2014. We had been warning about it. Will the same not become apparent with HAP? The experience in Dún Laoghaire and south Dublin shows that HAP cannot deliver for large parts of the country. The council can confirm it for me but the figure in Dún Laoghaire for new HAP tenancies this year is only 17.

There has been a significant drop in new housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancies and the figure has certainly fallen since last year. How long can we pursue the fantasy that HAP can have significant impact on the housing waiting list in places like the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area? What does one say to somebody who is facing eviction or is in homeless accommodation? I want to know what is the official response when a person has a list of places they have tried? I ask everyone who contacts me on this issue to write down details of every private rental they have tried to secure under HAP. Some of them have filled out three or four foolscap pages listing 80 or 90 places they have tried to rent. Not everyone is able to do this, however, and we can forget it in the case of a person who is dragging three or four kids around from a family hub to school. How are people who have done everything possible within the limits, yet cannot find accommodation and are facing eviction, supposed to secure a HAP tenancy? I know several people who are in this position. What is the official line to be given to such people when it is obvious that what is offered to them simply cannot be procured with HAP? I believe there is no answer and that needs to be admitted in certain parts of the State.

The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, situation is also precarious. Do the officials in the Department or local authority accept that it is precarious? I am dealing with a case where a woman who had been on the housing waiting list for 19 years is to be evicted from a RAS tenancy in July. She cannot even get back onto the main list because the council argues she did not apply to go onto a fixed transfer. The woman claims she did apply but the files have been lost or whatever. This woman, who was on the list for 19 years, is to be evicted from a RAS tenancy that was supposed to be secure social housing. What is she supposed to do?

On the income eligibility criteria, what are people supposed to do if they are offered a little overtime which would take their income over the threshold? I am aware of people who have been taken off the housing list as a result of this. Are people supposed to refuse overtime to stay on the housing list? One woman has refused a €10,000 pay increase because it would result in her being removed from the list. I will not name her because she has not given me permission do so, although she probably would give me permission. She is appalled by this criterion but she knows that even with the pay increase, she could not secure any accommodation in the Dún Laoghaire area. The woman is living in poverty to stay on the list. What will be done about that issue?

We have to move on. The Deputy may seek clarification during the response.

I have one final point about the place finder service. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan was the Minister when the legislation establishing the housing assistance payment was introduced. We argued in the Dáil that HAP was a fantasy and a measure such as a place finder service was required, although we did not have a name for it then. We have been told a few times by the Minister that there was a place finder service in Dún Laoghaire. I am bemused to discover, therefore, that the council is only now employing a person for the service. I do not understand this. Having been told in this room that there was a place finder service in Dún Laoghaire, we are now being told that the council is about to employ someone for a place finder service. I would like this mystery explained. What exactly will the place finder service do? I want it to help those who come in with reams of lists of places they have tried and failed to rent. I want an answer to be given to such persons, one which may involve raising the cap to enable them to secure a place. I want some system in place for a person who is making an effort in order that he or she is told, "Tough luck". There has to be something more than that. Will a place finder service do that?

Ms Catherine Keenan

On the HAP query, the figures were from March. At that point there were 17 homeless HAP cases and 70 standard HAP cases.

Ms Catherine Keenan

Yes. At this stage, there are 37 homeless HAP cases and 85 standard HAP cases, which gives a total of approximately 120. Given that our HAP target for 2018 is 240, we are about halfway there as we reach the midpoint of the year. I have to acknowledge that it is expensive to rent or buy a house in Dún Laoghaire. There is no doubt that people have difficulties in this regard but we are securing some properties under the scheme. The figure referred to by Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to homeless HAP cases and did not include standard HAP cases.

Obviously we have a duty of care with regard to RAS that we do not have in respect of the housing assistance payment. I do not know of the particular case the Deputy described but we have a duty of care in finding another RAS property or another solution.

On the cases of income eligibility and overtime payments resulting in people being removed from the housing list, I understand that this can present a difficulty. However, as noted earlier, the limits have been set and we must work within them. The Department is considering reviewing the limits nationally because they are relatively low.

On place finding services, we have increased the number of staff in our homeless and allocation sections to deal with what we can. We have people who will help out where they can. The Deputy spoke of raising the cap on the housing assistance payment. This is done regularly where we can do it. We are aware that people cannot find houses. Ms Ryan will verify that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council provides a higher cap for rents under HAP. We try to help vulnerable people who are having difficulty in finding placements by trying to locate properties for them. Of course we have difficulties in this regard because the supply is limited, but we do what we can.

The council will open a civic hub in July, which will be staffed by 16 people. The hub will deal with queries besides housing but it will be able to support people who come in and there will be kiosks where people can look up websites such as myhome.ie or daft.ie. Additional supports will be provided where we can do so.

Ms. Marguerite Ryan

I can confirm that there is an additional discretion of 50% above the rent limit is available in the Dublin region.

Can someone answer the question? If a person is trying to secure a rented property under the HAP but cannot find anything, even with the uplift, and if his or her search can be verified by providing a long list of places that have been tried, what do we say to him or her?

Ms Mary Hurley

I will come back in with a couple of points and I will deal with Deputy's question first. I will also address the place finder service, which the Deputy has raised in the House a number of times. The place finder service is relevant to the search for units for people. The Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, operates a shared place finder service across Dublin's council areas. There has always been a place finder service reaching out from the DRHE and working with the contact point in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. We met the DRHE this week and one of the options we are considering as we try to ramp up our prevention efforts is the possibility of locating satellite place finder offices in the other three local authorities. The Deputy is correct that there is nothing like having people on the ground to find places. We have supplemented the teams in the various Dublin regions and Ms Keenan and her team have been trying to find places also. There always has been a place finding service operated through the DRHE and it is a shared service. It has been able to facilitate the rent supplement uplifts and the homeless HAP. That is done through that process.

We saw last week how families were finding it very difficult to find accommodation. Where HAP is not yielding rental units at a particular point in time, there are a number of things we do. One is the inter-authority movement where we try to facilitate people in other HAP local authority areas. We also try to secure extra units through another form of accommodation such as long-term leasing. It is a mix of measures to try to accommodate people within the various different delivery mechanisms. Dún Laoghaire is probably the most challenging of all the local authority areas with regard to HAP because of the price ranges for properties. We work closely with Ms Catherine Keenan, director of housing, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on this. It is very challenging when a HAP unit is not available but we find alternative solutions.

Unfortunately, some people end up in emergency accommodation. We try to work them out through the HAP place finder. If there is a gap where we do not get accommodation, we try to get it as quickly as possible.

I refer to the figures of 50,000 and 87,000. Members have concerns about HAP, which they have set out on a number of occasions in the House. In the Dún Laoghaire area, there is a target of 1,544 homes to be built, acquired or leased up to 2021. We expect about 70% of them to be built. Then there is long-term leasing, which comprises contracts of up to 25 years. The contracts we have range between ten and 25 years. We are now putting in place a lot of 25-year contracts, which give people security. Separate from the HAP element, there is the build and lease acquisition element of the 50,000. We have been working with Ms Keenan and the team on trying to accelerate delivery there. We are seeing some good projects being delivered in Dún Laoghaire with George's Place opening up next week.

It is all about acceleration. We know that we need to accelerate more, and we are saying to local authorities that the targets are a minimum. Where they can do more, the Minister has made clear that the funding will be available, and we will support local authorities on delivery. Our new housing delivery office is working closely with local authorities. For us, it is all about homes and getting people into them. We will continue to try to do that. We will continue to try to make HAP as flexible as we can, and to put in place whatever supports we can to bring in units. That will involve increasing the place finder service in the DRHE. We need more people in there now. We have put additional resources in over the past number of months, but we will continue to add to them. It is important to get the right skill set in there. We need people who know what they are looking for and can get out there and do it quickly. There is a body of work under way there, and we will continue that.

This meeting has been long-awaited by a number of the committee members. I thank Mr. John-Mark McCafferty, Mr. Andrew Guy, Mr. Derek Rafferty, Ms Mary Hurley, who is a regular visitor, Ms Marguerite Ryan, Ms Mary Mulholland, Ms Kathleen Holohan and Ms Catherine Keenan for their attendance and engagement this morning. I also thank the committee members for staying for the full meeting. There were some questions from Deputy Healy-Rae, but he left. I presume he will watch proceedings back to get his answers, but the witnesses have answered them.

Ms Mary Hurley

There are a couple of bullet points I could provide to the clerk of the committee if she wishes to go over them.

That is great. That is Ms Hurley's fourth time answering that, so I thank her for that.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 May 2018.
Top
Share